People are not oblivious to the obvious improvement in security when a person cannot carry fingernail clippers under their left breast prosthesis.  The “Click it or Ticket” campaign comes to mind.  Some people are not wearing their seat belts despite being told to.  People prefer to choose their own level of risk and some will do risky things because they were told not to.  Some people drive without a seatbelt, some ride motorcycles without a helmet.  They have their reasons.  Some people recognize that their chances of being killed in a car crash while driving on the trip when they might have flown is still greater than flying with pre-9/11 security on the same trip, for now, a logical reason.  Those people would choose to not have their children touched by strangers after teaching the little darlings that this is always off limits.

They certainly would not do so for convenience or incremental additional safety.

When asked if the full body screening/brail method of terrorist detection is worth the added hassle, some 80% of Americans said yes.  What percentage of the 20% of Americans who actually fly would agree?  I expect the 80% will change their tune as the images of screaming 3 year olds being rubbed and patted make their way around.  The question I would like asked is how much extra would the 80% be willing to pay in taxes so that the airline traveling 20% can enjoy such security at discounted airfares?  I bet the amount is less than the current expenditure.

Imagine if cars were required to have every safety feature known.  They would be expensive, slow, and only as affective as the foresight of the designers.  Efficient travel and movement of goods and people would become subservient to the unattainable goal of risk free travel.  The rich would drive as a status symbol, the poor would effectively never drive, and businesses would rarely drive as the small improvement in safety would have to offset the costs of slower, cumbersome travel and the constant unpredictable nature of constant evolution.  The attempt to save us from every conceivable risk would hinder the auto and related industries.  Imagine now if there were only one supplier of cars and that supplier, the U. S. Government.  Throw in a little political correctness for good measure and you would have airline security like car travel.  The industry would require subsidy for continued existence.

Individuals do not quietly tolerate the level of control that companies are forced to succumb to.  Big Sis, via TSA, has simply switched between forcing her goal of every incremental improvement in safety on airline companies to forcing these on individuals.  Individuals will not succumb to the pressure of being labeled greedy for sacrificing passenger safety for reasonable costs, many will simply not fly.  This is where Janet Napolitano has erred.  She is using acceptance by political-correctness-sensitive companies as indication that personal liberty sensitive individuals will conform.  She should do a better job of marketing, but that would require a private sector understanding unknown to President Obama’s administration.

Such a marketing campaign should start with voluntary participation by the airlines.  “Grope Airlines” would tout safety with double redundant fondling and video taped cavity searches and proudly display the Homeland Security Seal of Big Sis Approval next to the premium price schedule.  Liberals would line up pre-lubed and donning tear away clothing, except the travel versions of not-with-my-money/not-in-my-back-yards who would sneak over to “Boxcutter Air” wearing droopy hats and hiding pepper spray to save the fee for Board Certified Feelers charged by Grope.  Eventually the better idea would win.  Something between allowing knives over 6 inches and second opinion cavity videos, would become the norm.  Is Mrs. Napolitano  afraid that the norm just might become knife wielding vigilante passengers who thwart the occasional exploding diaper nut with an Old Timer?  More likely, we would be lining up to get a grope and a massage followed by a cavity search/pap covered by Obamacare with about the same frequency with which we wear seat belts.  Since flights could not be offered for such a small segment as the seatbeltless, the economy Boxcutter flights would likely die away.  The free market would supply the rope for the socialist.  Big sis would never consider a non-government-in-control solution.

Ever hear the term, Underwriter’s Laboratory Listed?  Ever look for the UL Listed label on appliances?  Not now, we expect appliances to be safe now, not because TSA-like agents insisted, but because the purchasing public voted for it with their pocketbooks.  People tolerate fondling or radiation daily and can even accept hired strangers touching their children under the right circumstances.  We can be counted on to demand it, but it must be our demand, not demanded on us.  People are not oblivious to the obvious improvement in security.  The administration seems oblivious that we like to choose our own risk.  The administration seems oblivious to the idea that, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Tyranny does not understand liberty.  Tyranny is orderly and controlled, liberty is messy and unpredictable.  When tyranny is used to fight tyranny, tyranny wins.

But it occurred to me that I have noticed a series of events recently which made me remember her. I take some consolation for the friendships that ended over the years, in that each person who is no longer a friend, at least learned to recognize those traits they would not be able to tolerate in their next relationship, just as she served this purpose for me. We learn that the Jeep CJ-5 with the V-8, big tires and rag top is a lot more trouble than it is worth. We learn over the years to respect substance and view rosy promises with suspicion. We learn this not because we have been wronged, but because we better defined the difference between what we think will make us happy, and what does so over the long run.

President Obama recently promised the world that America will not use nuclear weapons in response to non-nuclear attacks against us. My suspicion was aroused immediately and the really important points about this assertion are in the stated, and implied, and effective exceptions to this promise.

First, you may remember me saying that limits placed on the town council by the town council are meaningless. If the council has the authority to place a limit on itself, it has the authority to release that limit. For the President to promise not to use nukes in response to an attack on America is at least arrogant, at most naive. For such a promise to have any meaning, one would have to assume that an attack on America would be so benign that our sovereignty would not be at risk. Could anyone really believe that they could attack us with the intent of occupying this country and ANY defense would be off the table? So this promise can only have meaning to those people who would attack us, in the belief they could prevail, but were deterred from doing so for fear of nuclear retaliation, but would now reconsider. We would gain no benefit in so limiting ourselves much less stating so publicly. Would we not prefer that they postpone their attack for such a fear?

So, if this promise is not for the benefit of our reluctant but nearly emboldened enemy, then who? The theories abound as there seems to be no immediate explanation. One such theory is that this is for Iran’s benefit. The theory is that Iran would not want to be on the naughty list of countries who are not protected against US nuclear attack since they have not agreed to non-proliferation. Come over to the light side of the force and we will agree to settle our differences with conventional weapons? Again, I am skeptical. Does anyone believe that this will result in an Iran who prefers a cozy relationship with the Great Satan over their stated religious imperative of destroying it?

Again, our enemies will not be impressed. Those we hope to pressure do not view this as a carrot and it certainly cannot be interpreted as a stick. Our allies, who we are sworn to protect, certainly cannot say that the US should not use ANY method to protect them from annihilation from non-nuclear attack when conventional weapons cannot prevail. Who is left? Who is he talking to? Well, this is where the cynic in me comes out.

This leaves our reluctant allies. This leaves those who tolerate us as long as there is a mutually agreeable arrangement. Greece, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, in short, mostly middle eastern countries who do not like us being in their back yard much less the threat of nuclear attacks in their part of the world. We want to tell them that we will not attack anyone in their back yard since we can handle any skirmish in that part of the world without having to flex our muscles that hard.

The bottom line is this: we will not stop at any limit to defend ourselves. No country would expect any different and few would hesitate to use nuclear weapons if available, to defend themselves, even if they would wait until it was the last resort. Indeed, the countries that spend most of their money on social programs and also have nuclear weapons, have little options prior to nuclear escalation if the US military does not fill in the gap. The President cannot take nukes off the table because he can just as easily put them back on, without prior notice, and potential aggressors know that. The explanation that stands out to me, mostly because I recognize it from my past, is that the President wants to be liked. The only explanation that makes sense to me, is that the President is trying to say that which will be well received by someone.

The President is most certainly assuring our non-nuclear allies that we will still do anything to protect them, including nuking the bad guys, and most certainly aware that our enemies who might attack us still know that we will do anything to protect ourselves, including nuking the bad guys. So the only ones who this could be directed at are those he has enough contempt for to tell them what they want to hear and enough confidence that they will believe him.

The promises seem shallow and meaningless and I expect him to lose friends just as my friend’s crush lost hers. The world is a suspicious place, where the US is concerned in particular. Very few places have populations gullible enough to believe promises of restraint prior to an uneven or unfair fight. Protected and secure people are often the most gullible and I suspect that the President is accustomed to talking to and hearing from such people in this country. I fear that the rest of the world will react in much the same way they have to the rest of the President’s speeches suggesting that the US should be a softer presence in the world. I fear that they will applaud his words, and continue with the same principled foreign policy they had before such proclamations. I fear that the shallow promise, not based on any clear principle, will stand out in contrast to the principled foreign policies of these countries and of America past. I fear that only those who have temporarily suspended disbelief will believe our President, and that only those who would attack us or our allies will consider acting on it. I fear that advertising some arbitrary limit to our defense has only rhetorical gain, but considerable potential loss.

Today it will finally happen. I am about to make you think that I have gone off the deep end. Half of you are going to think I’m a loon for what I’m about to say, the other half for my reasons. But, here goes.

We should surrender in Afghanistan and bring our people home.

OK, quiet down, here is where the rest of you give that hand gesture to the computer screen. Please, out of respect for my decision to put my conclusion first and give you a few minutes to wipe away a tear and say, “I’m so proud”, please read the following.

First, Afghanistan is a large country with relatively few people. That means there are lots of open space where no one lives, especially in the mountainous region near Pakistan. So, the Taliban “governed” the country so long as they left most of the tribal leaders in charge, gave them resources when the poppies went to market, and left the people of the tribes alone. Al Qaeda was welcomed by the Taliban because they brought money, training, etc, and there is plenty of room for them to have training camps without bothering the Taliban (mostly in the towns and cities) or the tribal leaders, (mostly in the plains and crop-able areas). Why is this important? Because even if all the tribal leaders agreed to join together in a republic, there would be insufficient people to close their borders and police the open areas against terrorist training camps. Afghanistan lends itself to smuggling and illicit behavior, and coincidently, the control of it by high tech methods like UAV’s. This is why Al Qaeda was there, why the Taliban formed there. When a relatively few U.S. special forces, I think about 3,000, showed up with flashlights and UAV’s and illuminated the landscape, the roaches scurried under rocks and into cracks, and fled under the fridge into Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, etc. This is my next point, there are rocks, cracks, and fridges to scurry under which are not in Afghanistan.

Next, there is Iran. When the roaches found safe haven in Iraq, agreed in limited numbers, and U.S. forces showed up hunting Saddam, Iran could not resist sending men and material to attack U.S forces and Iraqis. Iran has been doing such things for many years, and just like the Russians, we are reluctant to attack them full on, and they are reluctant to attack us full on. We are in a cold war with Iran. They use oil money to fund terrorism against all non-Muslim countries and Islamic countries not supporting the extermination of Israel or the other agendas their version of Islam demands. We are not building tanks and sub’s in an arms race like we were with Russia, we are in a man power race. Iran has filled the aggressive-fascist-totalitarian power vacuum left in Russia’s absence.

So, the Iraqi roach motel was set up with U.S. security when the Iraqi people tired of interference from Iran. There is generally little love lost between the differing factions (Shiites in Iran, and Sunnis in Iraq.) represented by the two countries and both took advantage of the chaos to kill the other. When the Iraqi’s grew tired of the killing, they embraced, grudgingly, the security offered by U.S. forces, there in large numbers. They are taking over this security in hopes of thwarting Iran and other’s attempts to destabilize them in the future, and that the Americans will soon leave. Roaches check in, but don’t check out, so they needed somewhere else to scurry, and the Iranians needed someplace easier to attack Americans by proxy, and someplace easier to destabilize.

Iran is now sending their insurgents and IED’s to Afghanistan, and trying to affect the destabilization of Pakistan. Why these? Why now? Pakistan is easy, they are U.S. allies with little willingness to face off against Iran, so Iran can take pot shots at Pakistan without the possibility of an all out war. Second, if Pakistan falls into a state friendlier to Iran than the U.S., perhaps Iran can simply buy/steal/borrow their first nuke, or affect the delivery of one which did not originate in Iran.

Afghanistan is a little harder, but is the bridge from the situation there, to my assertion that we should surrender. President Obama claims that he can establish a dialogue with Iran and improve our relationship with them. The controlling tyrants in Iran, and much of its population, believe that it is a divine imperative that Israel must perish, and anyone who interferes with this must also. It is as much a part of their religion that we are evil, and Muslims who do not oppose us must die whenever possible, as Mass is sacred to Catholics. Catholics would not soften on Mass any more than Shiites will soften on the destruction of the little and great satans, or the nukes they think will bring this about. God is mightier than President Obama, at least he still is in their eyes. When President Obama insinuates that he can improve relations with Iran by offering anything other than American or Israeli deaths, it does two things. It shows Iran that they can behave even worse than before, without prompting military responses, and it compels them to demonstrate to the world that they will not soften in their faith.

So, to win in the middle east is similar to ridding your house of roaches. You can enclose it in a tent, fog it, and kill them all at once. Affective, but drastic and expensive. Or, you can start where they are known to be and kill them there while making that area inhospitable to them in the future. Still not cheap, and more time consuming, but limits the places where holes must be drilled and offensive odors generated. In my analogy, the first involves an all out attack on Iran. Destroy the world’s most prolific supporter of terrorism and show the next would-be-tyranny-vacuum filler the futility of leading by bayonet in opposing freedom. The second involves maintaining a U.S. presence in Iraq, kicking non-Afghanis out of Afghanistan and maintaining a presence there, just as in Germany, Japan, Italy, and others. Then, lather-rinse-repeat, until there are no rocks and cracks in which Iran can hide insurgents and Al Qaeda can train terrorists. This would include places like Syria and Pakistan, and eventually, Iran.

President Obama is unwilling to accept either approach. This is his prerogative, except that he has backed himself into a corner. I assert that when then Congressman and Presidential candidate Obama declared Afghanistan the righteous war, the war of necessity, the war that must be won, he was not giving an assessment of Afghanistan. I assert that he was contrasting it with Iraq. He was not so much declaring that Afghanistan must be won at all costs, although he came close, as he was stating how bad he thought President Bush’s judgment was in fighting an unjust and unwinnable war in Iraq and neglecting the just, winnable one in Afghanistan.

A few things changed after he took this stance. First, Iraq was won and if left alone, the military would manage the transition of troops from Iraq. No credit awarded to President Obama for getting troops out of Iraq. Second, the roaches scurried to Afghanistan. Flashlights and UAV’s would need backup by more troops. And, candidate Obama is now President Obama. He can’t send more troops because that looks like Bush and is contrary to his belief that there is rarely a military option. But he can’t loose there, because he would look wrong/weak.

So, thinking he had it licked, he hand picks General McChrystal to asses what is needed to do what the President wants. More on the want part in a minute. McChrystal takes him seriously and does just that, to the tune of 40,000 more troops. President Obama’s chin hits the oval office desk and he quickly, and truthfully starts to re-assess his policy. The collective anti-war gasp is audible even in the heartland. “He is not seriously considering sending more troops to the Middle East?”

The clincher comes from the, “do what the President wants”, part. If you look at McChrystal’s assessment, there is little or no mention of troops needed to win the war. It is mostly about building hospitals and schools and other winning the hearts and minds stuff. I already indicated why this will have no influence on the insurgents as there are no dead Americans being offered. And, since there are not enough Afghans to protect the country without the Americans, winning their help does not bring the troops home. So as the insurgents escalate the war, and the President escalates the social engineering, Americans are dying.

I see nothing that indicates that this President is willing to match the insurgent escalation with backup for our troops. I see no indication that he intends to protect the Afghanis once such a war is won by leaving protection forces occupying Afghanistan, or to do anything similar to prop up Pakistan and protect her nukes. There is no doubt in my mind that he does not intend to chase roaches into any other place on earth. As I see it, with this President, there are only limited possible outcomes. First, we could prevail in Afghanistan and bring our troops home from everywhere in the Middle East as the left keeps insisting on doing. This will allow the Taliban to return, making the lives and treasure lost in vain. It is anybody’s guess what would become of Iraq once the promise of U.S. enforced security is broken. I suspect Iran will seek revenge for its last war with Iraq and that this time Iran will prevail.

Second, we could stay in Iraq, and keep an outpost in Afghanistan but stop advancing the war on terror. The troops in Afghanistan and Iraq would be the subject of attack just as the Israeli counterparts are. (There have been some 7,000 missiles launched into Israel from Palestinian territory. Any guess what country made the missiles?) They would continue to die in the name of the status quo, with no measurable affect on curbing terrorism or the harboring thereof.

Third, we could stay and fight without prevailing in a kind of artificial proportionate-response stale mate reminiscent of Vietnam. This would be brought on by sending fewer troops than needed to overwhelm the enemy, say for instance if the military expert chosen by the President asked for 40,000 troops and got 20,000 instead. If you don’t know, this is the route chosen by the President in recent days. Our people would continue to die in the name of the status quo, with no measurable affect on curbing terrorism or the harboring thereof.

Fourth, we surrender and bring the troops home now before any more are lost. They would no longer continue to die, with no measurable affect on curbing terrorism or the harboring thereof. We could, of course, use Special Forces to make precision strikes anywhere in the world we could find roaches. This would require considerable increases in the clandestine presence in marginally friendly places and in hell holes alike. The left would sooner cut off funding for abortions in minority neighborhoods than offer to increase the size and scope of the CIA and the like. This would also hint that there are people in the world who cannot be reached by the current President’s charm and therefore need to die.

All of these possibilities would render us less safe in retreat than continuing the war on terror wherever the roaches scurry to. But without such an alternative in the Presidential list of ideological options, surrender gives our military a chance to survive until such a time as things get bad enough, or we elect a president more worried about Americans than political posturing, to put them to the use which they are suited.

Our military is full of people of character willing and immensely able to fight and die for freedom. They are supremely suited to fighting and dying for the cause to which they are turned. But when they are hindered from fighting, it is senseless to allow them to die.

It is my opinion that this President will make no use of our military greats worthy of their deaths. Bring them home and hand victory, or at least the claim of it, to the enemy. Do this openly instead of covertly behind the Washington spin of political correctness. The President will not overwhelm the enemy so that our people do not die, so he must retreat or allow them to do so.
The President’s philosophy that there is no military solution to violent attacks, only allows for limited proportionate response, or retreat. I hope that he chooses the least deadly option and retreats. At least then there is a chance that in a few years another president will come along, or some epiphany will befall this one, such that they will be needed again for purposes nobler than satisfying a roaches need to feed, or the President’s hope that the faithful will stray in fatigue from hearing him declare it preferable to us.

Through the years our government has found many reasons to send our troops overseas and we are now continuing with President Bush’s “preventative war strategy to contain rogue states”. Is this really a war on terrorism, or something else? We have built an empire and it continues to grow every year. Don’t you think it causes resentment overseas? Consider how you’d feel about a Chinese military base here.  The Pentagon currently owns or rents 716 overseas bases in 38 countries and has another 4,863 bases in the United States and its territories. In just one country, Germany, we have 18 air and army bases. http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/bsr/BSR2009Baseline.pdf

Also, consider the fact that we spend more on our military than does the entire rest of the world combined – over $600 billion per year. This is big business, as a matter of fact, too big to fail. As our war machine grows so does the need for new wars and the new reasons to justify them. Although it may take years for the public to be properly conditioned for the next war, there will always be another. We are now being conditioned for military action in Iran and Yemen. The obvious bungling of our intelligence in the near-catastrophic Detroit plane incident at Christmas makes you wonder. Are our intelligence agencies really that stupid or is there a method behind this madness?

“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” — James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

I may be naive, but I see the inherent flaw in his assertions and rhetoric. There is a precondition. Further, President Obama is unwilling to do what it takes to meet without this precondition.
Specifically, the “Ahmadinejads” will not sit down and talk. They do not want to give the American President, the great Satan, the prestige such a meeting would bring to President Obama, at least in fascist circles. Our President has no such reservations about offering the prestige of his office to Ahmadinejad as he believes that only by humbling himself to them will they capitulate. This is the crux of my revelation.

A dear friend of mine, a generally quiet, reserved, patient and tolerant person, posed some passionate questions about the state of science in our country. He is a true scientist in that he realizes that discoveries may or may not fit our hopes and they may or may not survive the test of time. He recently gave me a C. S. Lewis book which I am enjoying greatly. You remember, The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe guy? The point of this is an observation Mr. Lewis made with which I am inclined to agree. Paraphrasing: good and evil are not battling, evil is the perversion of good, not the absence of it, an evil person believes that they are doing good for themselves and for others. In other words, some people do things just because they are the right things to do, but no one does anything because they are committed to doing the wrong thing or the evil thing. Consider those we consider evil, Hitler, Stalin, Mao; they all believed that they were fighters for the good of their people.

Ahmadinejad is doing what he thinks will save the world as a matter of deep religious belief and principle. There is nothing President Obama can eloquently say or offer to divert such motivations. Indeed, I wonder if President Obama holds any such beliefs or principles which he would not consider setting aside as a precondition to talks. I feel confident that there is no American ideal, an offering of which would get Ahmadinejad’s attention, much less his compromise. After all, he wants our lives, and after that, he would be interested in his share of our wealth, our ideals are frivolous to him.

But my theory pertains more to the other players in the region who do not hold such hatred and who do not wish my destruction. For example, the President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai is being particularly uncooperative in his reaction to American demands to take up American Ideals or face President Obama’s threat to remove American troops. I don’t think that this is so much a reaction to the great Satan as it is a grasp of reality every political creature understands: I will need a loyal base to remain in power. President Obama has made it clear that he expects Karzai to be a part of Obama’s base, not the other way around. The Taliban offers to be more loyal for Karzai’s support.

But why would the local tribes side with a political hack instead of fighting for a free Afghanistan? I think that they view President Obama as untrustworthy and unworthy of allying oneself with. The reason I came to this conclusion lies in the words of Marcus Luttrell in his book, Lone Survivor. He refers to a principle the people of Hindu Kush live by, loosely translated: “Me and my brother against my cousin; me, my brother, and my cousin against the other.” The other being strangers or people from other lands. Many Muslims understand this to mean evil people, some understand this to mean anyone not of their belief.

The people of Hindu Kush do not slight one another as this could lead to an entire tribe coming to bear to right the slight. If the retribution is unwarranted, or even if the slight were understandable, the family of the offending person, and likely his whole tribe, could be called upon to protect him. Wars can result and so they are very careful about accusations. Indeed, when a slight is heard which is not obviously warranted, people are duty bound to take to the streets in mob protest, lest there be any doubt that the slight is true. This explains why less than flattering images of Mohammad in a cartoon brought riots in some of the Muslim world. They were duty bound to leave no doubt where they stand.

If an accusation, of theft for example, is not met with such reaction, one can assume that the theft must have taken place. No admittance will likely come, but the retribution might be allowed, and to protect the tribe, the thief’s hands might be cut off by the offender’s family in order to head off war.

With my limited understanding of this perspective, superior to our own in some respects, I draw the conclusion that President Obama is viewed with little respect in that part of the world. He openly complains about the slights, in his opinion, his country has made against the world, and then expects the Hindu Kush to respect him for it. If one of their own did such a thing, they would exile that man if he were loved, cut out his tongue if he were mediocre, or execute him in heinous ways if this was not his first embarrassment. He acts in such an unacceptable way and we do nothing, no riots, no guns shot into the air, no straw men burned in effigy. They can only be expected to draw one conclusion, that he is lying and we all know it.

The people of that region have held these principles for a hundred times longer than the US has been a country. It is obvious that they respect the barrels of our guns as they do those of their neighbors and as we do theirs, but the ideals of freedom to decide for ourselves if our cousins are guilty and, which friends to defend, are foreign to them (as their customs are to us). The act of complaining about them publicly seems so bizarre that they do not trust President Obama’s campaign speech demanding that we must support the Afghan people and fight the just war.

How must they see us when they have defended their brothers for 4,000 years as a matter of principle and President Obama offers to trade defending them for 18 months in return for adopting his ideals?

1. Shot 54 U.S. soldiers while shouting Allah Akbar;
2. Tried to contact Al Qaeda twenty times via his spiritual mentor turned recruiter in Yemen;
3. Asked his mentor what he could do to help with the Jihad;
4. Told fellow staff and soldiers that infidels (non-Muslims) should have their throats cut;
5. He is and ardent Muslim who views the war on terror as a war on other Muslims;
6. Warned his superiors that Muslims should be allowed to avoid deployment as conscientious objectors to avoid “adverse events”;

We know more about this guy than we did about President Obama when he convinced us to let him remake America.